All the cardinal’s men

Sun-Times religion writer Susan Hogan/Albach reprises her rundown on how Chicago churchmen prospered in the wake of the Rev. Daniel McCormack scandal in this (farewell) blog.  She did well in her short time at that newspaper, now being axed beyond recognition in paroxysms of budget-cutting.

Two years ago this month, the Rev. Daniel McCormack was arrested for molesting boys. He’s in prison now. And the top leaders in the Archdiocese of Chicago who might have stopped him have risen in their church positions.

They are:

* Cardinal George, elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops four months after McCormack pleaded guilty and went to jail

* George Rassas, made an auxiliary bishop a few weeks after McCormack’s 2006 arrest following his 2005 arrest and subsequent further molestation of children while remaining a pastor

* Chancellor Jimmy Lago, who kept his job throughout the McCormack sequence, while overseeing offices that handle sexual abuse, claiming ignorance.

* Rev. John Canary, seminary vice rector in 1992 when sexual accusations were made against McCormack involving two adult males and a minor starting in 1988, later seminary rector and in 2006 appointed vicar general, replacing Rassas when he was made a bishop

* Bishop Gerald Kicanas, seminary rector during McCormack’s years who knew of “sexual improprieties” reported about him but said, “It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him” and became a bishop in 1995, a year after McCormack’s ordination, in 2001 being given his own diocese (Tucson) and being elected vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops two months ago, with presumed right of succession to the presidency now held by Cardinal George.

Loads of comments follow the blog item.

The rooster crows

If you doubted something new was coming, you were wrong, Barack Obama said in his S. Carolina victory speech, even as he was being compared to JFK by Caroline K. in NYT

However, if JFK told us to ask what we could do for our country, Obama tells us to ask what our country can do for us.

Such as to “make college affordable or energy cleaner” and rid us of “crumbling schools . . . shuttered mills and homes for sale” and get us “a health care plan . . . better pay” and help “struggling homeowners [a]nd seniors,” to put “an end to a war” and achieve “jobs and justice.”

Millions for tribute to economic expectations, nothing (not a word) for defense against worldwide Islamic radicalism.  That will come later, we trust, when he’s in office and disaster strikes.  Meanwhile, the base requires economic salvation-by-government, and this man promises it.

Great oratorical skills, better speech-writing, with beautifully located shots at the Billary campaign.  He has the tools of inspiration of the masses, as did Caesar per Wm. Shakespeare, Casca telling Brutus:

I saw Mark Antony offer him a crown (yet ’twas not a crown neither, ’twas one of these coronets) and, as I told you, he put it by once. But for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered it to him again; then he put it by again. But, to my thinking, he was very loath to lay his fingers off it. And then he offered it the third time; he put it the third time by; and still as he refused it, the rabblement hooted and clapped their chopped hands and threw up their sweaty nightcaps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar, for he swounded and fell down at it. And for mine own part, I durst not laugh for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.

This fellow also had a way with words, did he not?


From Powerline Blog:

No doubt some will characterize [Obama’s speech] as eloquent, but I think a better term is vapid. If you strip away the vaguely high-minded generalities, only two policy positions are (more or less) clearly stated. Obama wants to fail in Iraq, and he wants government-run medicine here at home. It’s hard to see anything either noble or unifying in these goals.


Obama’s speech was virtually content free. Obama declared that “there are real differences between the candidates,” but then failed to cite even one policy disagreement between him and his Democratic rivals.

A shell game.

Yet more, from the inimitable Mark Steyn:

Re: Caroline Kennedy

Obama is Kennedyesque in one respect: on the stump with supporters (in my experience), he’s cool and a little remote and detached – and, like JFK pre-death, oddly unknowable. Maybe it’s just in comparison with that oozing phony Edwards touting the same old mawkish driveling anecdotage from town to town.

Anyway, I don’t suppose that’s what Miss Kennedy means. All she’s saying is that a big chunk of the country (and not all of them Democrats) want someone new, young and glamorous – and, if he’s a member of an approved minority group, so much the better.

The new, the young, the glamorous.  From Chicago?